.3 



caught upon the Cauadian side at 3 cents 

 a pound. Canadian whitetish he enters at 

 8 cents a pound, and American whitefish, 

 which is cau;;ht in the same waters and is 

 really worth more, because it is right in 

 the market where the fish are sold, he de- 

 liberately puts down at one-third of the 

 value, and in this way statistics relative 

 to our fisheries have been made up from 

 year to year. That there may be no mis- 

 representation in reference to this matter, 

 I will just read what appears in the blue- 

 books, and I find that similar statements 

 have appeared in the different blue-books 

 for three or four successive years. 



Catch of fish on hoth sides of the (ireat Lakes in 

 :• the years ISHO, ISSo an.l 18S9. 



Year. 



1880. 



Quantity, 



Lbs. 



Value.* 



Canada 11,473,(XX> 



United States, ' 45,000,000 



1885. - I 



Canada ' 2"7,378,180 



L'nited States 70,423,728 



1889. 



Canada 



United States. . 



29,198,359 

 91,076,024 



416,791 

 984,;")00 



1,268,551 

 1,813,078 



1,816,462 

 1,827,248 



* According' to report of Department of Marine and 

 Fisheries for 1891. 



I wish to du-ect the attention of the House 

 to the manner iu which these statistics are 

 made up. In 1880 the entire catch on the 

 Cauadian side of the lakes was 11,473,000 

 pounds of tish, the value of which, according 

 to the Department of Marine and Fisheries, 

 was $410,791. The entire catch on the Am- 

 erican side of the lake was 45,600,000 pounds, 

 and the value, according to the Department 

 of Marine and Fisheries, was $984,500. In 

 188u, the Canadian catch was 27,378,150 

 pounds, valued at $1,268,551, and the United 

 States catch was 76,423,728 pounds, 

 valued at $1,813,078. In 1889, the Cana- 

 dian catch was 29,198,359 pounds, valued 

 at $1,816,462, and the United States 

 catch was 91,076,624 pounds, valued at 

 $1,827,214. Now, Sir, in 1880, 11,- 

 000,000 pounds of Canadian fish was valued 

 at about half as much as 45,000,000 pounds 

 of the same kind of fish caught on the other 

 side of the lake. In 1885, 27.000.000 pounds 

 of Canadian fish was valued at two-thirds 

 as much as 76,000,000 pounds of Ameri- 

 can fish ; and in 1889. 29.000,000 pounds of 

 Canadian fish were valued at nearly the 

 same figures as 91,000.000 pounds of Ameri- 

 can fish, or within $10,000 of the amount. 

 These are extraordinary figures. I called 



H W A IJ 



the attention of hon. gentlemen to them at 

 the last session of Parliament. The hon. 

 gontleniau may make any sort of state- 

 ment to the House. I suppose, but there 

 is no way of preventing him doing 

 that sort of thing, but here arc the 

 blue-books of Canada cooke<^l for a special 

 purpose, and designedly cooked, bxKrause 

 these misrepresentations appear in one blue- 

 book aftm* anotlier. I would like to know 

 how the hon. gentleman will explain putting 

 down herrings at 3 cents a pound, when they 

 are valued iu the United States at 1 cent a 

 pound, and whitefish at 8 cents, when the 

 wholesale price in the market is $4. or not 

 more than 4i/j cents ; trout at 10 cents, when 

 the wholesale price is $4. Evidently the 

 statistics bearing upon the fisheries question 

 are made up in this waj' in order to make 

 a favourable showing, and American fish 

 are valued at one-third less than Canadian 

 fish. 



Now, I have alluded to the Lake Erie 

 fisheries. Fully onohalf of this enormous 

 business in the fisheries is carried, on almost 

 opposite the county of Essex. But +he hon. 

 gentleman alluded to that as a trifiing mat- 

 ter and a mere bagatelle. He said : 



In order to put the matter in its strongest light, 

 as I have said, the hon. gentleman dwelt upon a 

 comparatively small strip of water, where a very 

 few men have been engaged in the fishing busi- 

 ness. The amount is a mere bagatelle. That is 

 their strong point, and they bring that up as an 

 evidence of the hardship of the case. I meet 

 them by saying, that although the subject came 

 up earlier in the session and we are now in June, 

 yet I have to learn the name of one solitary in- 

 dividual who has been ruined or injured by the 

 enforcement of a necessary and wholesome regu- 

 lation. 



This is another of the hon. gentleman's very 

 extravagant statements. He has yet to learn 

 that one solitary person has been injured 

 by the w'lolesome and necessary regula- 

 tions. Well, the statement is somewhat in- 

 volved. If the regulations were wholesome 

 and necessary, perhaps no fishermen would 

 be injured, but as a matter of fact every 

 single regulation in connection with our 

 fisheries has hampered and injured our fish- 

 ermen. The lion, gentleman has reduced the 

 .gill-ne«t. It will take about as many men to 

 fish with the one pound-net as with ten 

 pound-nets, yet his policy is only to 

 allow one pound-net to our fishermen. 

 The result is that they are handicapped and 

 cannoi; fish to advantage. Four men cpa 

 fish ten pound-nets. Here is one of the re- 

 gulations by which the .fishermen are in- 

 jured. Then again in reference to gill-nets. 

 The department has reduced the allowance 

 of gill-net to one boat to 6,000 jTirds. The 

 hon. Minister must know that this regula- 

 tion is violated. It is violated, I suppose, 

 in 75 per cent of cases. The fishei-men do 

 not pretend to live up to it. The allowance 

 of gill-netting for tugs was cut dov/n to 12,- 

 900 yards ; and, Sir, it Is well known that 

 the tugs are using two or three tlmw that 



